- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-161/24, OSA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 February 2024 – OSA - Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, z.s. v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0161
62024CN0161
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2024/3736
(Case C-161/24, OSA)
(C/2024/3736)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: OSA - Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, z.s.
Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže
Questions referred
1.Can Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the conduct of a collective management company that has a de facto monopoly in a Member State and charges accommodation facility operators prices for the provision of a licence to make copyrighted works available by means of television and radio receivers located in rooms intended for the accommodation of private guests, which do not take into account the actual occupancy of the individual rooms of the accommodation facilities concerned, amount to an abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of that article?
2.If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must such a practice be assessed in terms of (a) the application of unfair trading conditions or (b) the application of excessive prices?
If the correct standard is the application of unfair trading conditions, what is the specific test to be applied in assessing it?
If the correct standard is the application of excessive prices, what is the specific test to be applied – the general ‘United Brands test’ or a particular modified version thereof?
3.In establishing an infringement of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to the conduct referred to in the first question, is it necessary to prove actual or potential adverse effects on competition (including effects on consumer welfare and the exploitative effects of the dominant entity’s conduct)?
4.In establishing an infringement of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to the conduct referred to in the first question, is it necessary to prove that the conduct has a substantial effect on trade between EU Member States, or is it sufficient to have a reasonable assumption that such an effect might occur and it is not necessary to examine its actual extent?
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3736/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—